As a contributor to the IPCCs 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureates alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this years Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The reports first table of figures - inserted by the IPCCs bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCCs published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gores movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gores exaggeration of sea-level rise was one.

At the very heart of the IPCCs calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005). Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCCs 2007 report do not mention it once.

The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earths surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the surface forcing), and the temperature will scarcely respond.

That is why all of the IPCCs computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere hot-spot, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.

For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, The science is settled, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCCs computer predictions. The IPCCs entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.

Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.

The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.

Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.

If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the worlds poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.

If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the worlds carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.

As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCCs laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now - for the third time in three decades - failing to speak up for those who are about to die.

My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the worlds poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/current-affairs/41719-ipcc-fraud.html

This is great! - “the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.”

Lemmings!

5
posted on 12/16/2007 4:11:23 AM PST
by RoadTest
("It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law. - Psalm 119:26)

I can't believe what I just read. The peace prize laureate disses the Nobel committee, the think tank he represents and his co-laureate, Al Gore in one fell scientific swoop. Now THAT is an inconvenient truth!

It is easier for the lemmings to listen to “Elmer Gantry” than to look for the facts.
I make sure my kids get the facts. We all should! I email them with articles like this and make sure they read them.. I threaten them with changing my will if they do not!
Let us not forget “saccharine”, another waste of Billions of research dollars on junk science pushed by a few elites in the “70’s. I was involved with that mess on the animal research side. Bad science........

20
posted on 12/16/2007 5:15:03 AM PST
by primatreat
(primatreat: Hold political and scientific idiots responsible by taking there money and glory away!)

Monckton has been on top of this from the get-go. I’m pretty sure that as a member of the House of Lords, his presence there is hereditary (as he states in the article) and therefor immune to the displeasure of others.

When I saw the headline, I hoped co-lauret Monckton was making more headlines, but alas this is the same story from a week ago. His plea to the Bali summit fell on deaf ears as the US was booed, until our delegates were pressured to throw a few crumbs.

It will take more time for these opinions to surface to the point that the blatant money grabbers (even self-admitted) back down. Perhaps the crumbs we offered (ageeing to further talks after W is out of office) will forestall this disaster and indeed allow the scam to become apparent.

Head honchos of the Bali summit have publically stated that economic redistribution must be at the heart of any Kyoto type agreement. You probably missed those headlines...duh. Bottom line is: the world wants to tax us in the rich and greedy US, and they frankly don't give a damn if the premise is false.

We've seen this before: charged as guilty, but proven innocent and off to jail nonetheless because we don't like you and your riches.

It's time for a new tact, which I suppose is to be sure the Senate knows this. It made me shiver when all our R candiates were ready to raise their hands in agreement last week in Iowa, until Fred stopped the charade.

26
posted on 12/16/2007 5:44:37 AM PST
by chiller
(Old Media is not yet dead. Turn them off and they will die.)

Ice Core Data Reverses  2003
First crucial point, 2003. We’ve all seen Al Gores movie. It was the early, low
resolution ice core data first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO2 was
the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature marched in rose and fell in lockstep over the
last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (results from 1985 
2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was ASSUMED (bad assumption #1 that CO2 levels controlled the worlds temperature.

After further research, new high resolution ice core results (data points only a few
hundred years apart) in 2000  2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the
temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2
changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels, and not the
other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedalling
away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003:....
[long..]http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

#2: -—[ABOUT THE AUTHOR of the above]-—
“I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train”

By David Evans

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry.....http://mises.org/story/2571

Lord Monckton has been debunking the global warming hysterial for some time. Where he was once a voice in the wilderness, he is joined daily by more and more scientists who haven’t got the stomach for the lies and fabrications.

Remember, the politicians who are pushing this issue forward know nothing about science and care less. They are using this as a means of estabishing the UN as a World taxing authority and they intend to tax the US above all.

Head honchos of the Bali summit have publically stated that economic redistribution must be at the heart of any Kyoto type agreement. You probably missed those headlines...duh. Bottom line is: the world wants to tax us in the rich and greedy US, and they frankly don't give a damn if the premise is false.

Yes, while quite a bit of ink and electrons have been expended by journalists on the COP-13 track (Kyoto II emission reductions), the press for some reason hasn't made much of the second track, the so-called CMP-3 which finalizes many points on the "Adaptation Fund".

Since this U.N. entity is funded by extracting money from carbon trading (monetization of CERs is explicitly mentioned, though I believe that there are probably other possibilities), I would imagine that it actually received a lot of the actual attention of many of the attendees.

My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the worlds poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.

Where does this guy get off questioning Saint Albert the Gore and scientific consensus? Because of course we all know that science has nothing to do with raising questions and voicing objections. Just like that darned Galileo or Einstein going around and raising questions about settled scientific consensus and all that...

I'm assuming that "physicalthe" is a typo, but I can't figure out how that sentence should read. Changing the sentence to "the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature." doesn't make any sense either.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.